ROC Imposes Penalty on Directors for failure to furnish MBP-1 and DIR-8 to Secretarial Auditor:

ROC imposes Rs. 1 lakh penalty on directors for failing to maintain MBP-1 and DIR-8 under Companies Act
Failure to Maintain MBP-1 and DIR-8 Records Triggers Penalty under Section 184

ROC Imposes Penalty on Directors for failure to furnish MBP-1 and DIR-8 to Secretarial Auditor
The Registrar of Companies (ROC), Bangalore initiated adjudication proceedings against AVK Valves India Private Limited and its directors for non-compliance with disclosure requirements under the Companies Act, 2013. During inquiry, it was noted from the Secretarial Audit Report (MGT-8) that the company failed to maintain statutory records such as Form MBP-1 and DIR-8 for the financial year ending 31.03.2022.
The company, in its reply, claimed that such records were available for most directors except one. However, the ROC found that no documentary evidence was produced either during inquiry or adjudication to substantiate this claim. It was also observed that the company had failed to provide these records to the Secretarial Auditor, thereby confirming non-compliance. Despite an opportunity of hearing, the explanation offered was not found satisfactory.
Issue Before Court: Whether failure to maintain and furnish disclosure records (MBP-1 and DIR-8) under Section 184 attracts penalty on all directors under Section 184(4) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Tribunal Held: The ROC Bangalore held that the company had violated the provisions of Section 184 by failing to maintain and produce mandatory disclosure records for directors. It rejected the company’s contention that compliance existed for certain directors, observing that no supporting evidence was produced and that records were not made available to the Secretarial Auditor.
The adjudicating authority emphasized that the obligation to maintain such disclosures lies with the company and its directors collectively, and partial or unsubstantiated compliance cannot be accepted. Accordingly, all directors were held liable for the default for the financial year 2021–22. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 each was imposed on six directors, being the prescribed amount under Section 184(4). The directors were directed to rectify the default and pay the penalty within 90 days from receipt of the order, failing which further consequences under the Act may follow. The order also provides the right to appeal before the Regional Director within 60 days.
To Read Full Order, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2165My Recent Articles
- ITAT Quashes Rs 2 Crore Penalty as Time-Barred; Limitation Starts from AO’s Reference, Not Show-Cause NoticePremium
- ITAT Remands Appeal After Finding NFAC Ignored 89 Pages of Evidence on Cash Deposits and Flat Improvement CostPremium
- ITAT Grants Fresh Opportunity in Rs 2.63 Crore Foreign Bank Credit Addition CasePremium
- ITAT Deletes Section 68 Addition on Explained Demonetisation Cash DepositsPremium
- ITAT Grants Section 80P Relief to Souharda Society, Remands Demonetisation DepositsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts









